Hi Jason, Colin, Thanks for your feedback.
If we are going to keep supporting the empty group id like before then it makes sense to do what you suggested. Though, IMHO if using the empty group id for committing offsets is a bad practice we should stop supporting it at some point; and it would be better to do it sooner before potentially more users adopt that. I understand that changing the default would reduce the chance of someone using it, but it doesn't stop them. Note that we did not receive any objections to dropping the support even right-away (a good sign). We could keep supporting the old API version in case someone must use this group id like before. But at least we won't expose new users to this bad practice. I, too, do now have a strong opinion about this. So if the current KIP should not move forward as is, I'm okay with just changing the default and deprecating the use on the client, as you suggested. Thanks. --Vahid From: Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> To: dev@kafka.apache.org Date: 08/02/2018 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id behavior in KafkaConsumer Thanks, Jason. I don't have a very strong opinion on this. But like you said, if we skip bumping the RPC versions, this would be a smaller change, which might be good. best, Colin On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, at 17:43, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hey Vahid, > > I talked with Colin offline. I think specifically he felt the version bump > on the broker was overkill since the broker still has to support the empty > group id for older versions. I had thought that eventually we would be able > to remove those old versions, but it's true that this may not happen until > indefinitely far in the future. I think the main improvement here is > changing the default group.id to null instead of "". I could go either way > on whether bumping the protocol is useful. I do think it is helpful though > to signal clearly that it its use is deprecated and discouraged, especially > in light of the ACL problem. I guess we could just deprecate the use on the > client. What do you think? > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Vahid S Hashemian <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com > > wrote: > > > Thanks Jason for responding to Colin's concerns. > > > > If there are no other comment / feedback / objection I'll start a vote > > soon. > > > > Thanks. > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > Date: 07/27/2018 10:38 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > Hey Colin, > > > > The problem is both that the empty group id is the default value and that > > it is actually accepted by the broker for offset commits. Combine that > > with > > the fact that auto commit is enabled by default and you users get > > surprising behavior. If you look at a random Kafka cluster, you'll > > probably > > find a bunch of inadvertent offset commits for the empty group id. I was > > hoping we could distinguish between users who are using the empty group id > > as an accident of the default configuration and those who use it > > intentionally. By default, there will be no group id and the consumer will > > not commit offsets. If a user has actually intentionally used the empty > > group id, however, it will continue to work. I actually think there are > > probably very few people doing this (maybe even no one), but I thought we > > might err on the side of compatibility. > > > > The big incompatible change here is having brokers reject using > > assign(...) > > > with empty / null group.id. > > > > > > This is not correct. In the proposal, the broker will only reject the > > empty > > group id for the new version of OffsetCommit. Older clients, which cannot > > be changed, will continue to work because the old versions of the > > OffsetCommit API still accept the empty group id. The null group id is > > different from the empty group id: it is not allowed in any version of the > > API. It is basically a way to indicate that the consumer has no dependence > > on the coordinator at all, which we actually have a surprising number of > > use cases for. Furthermore, if a user has an actual need for the empty > > group id, it will still be allowed. We are just deprecating it. > > > > -Jason > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Sorry if this is a silly question, but what's the rationale for > > switching > > > to using null for the default group id, rather than the empty string? > > > Continuing to use the empty string seems like less churn. And after > > all, > > > we're not using the empty string group name for anything else. > > > > > > The big incompatible change here is having brokers reject using > > > assign(...) with empty / null group.id. If I understand correctly, the > > > KIP proposes that this change be made on the brokers on the next > > > incompatible Kafka release. But that has nothing to do with client > > > versions. Why not just have a broker config which controls this? Maybe > > " > > > allow.assign.empty.group.id", or something like that. At first, the > > > default will be true, and then eventually we can flip it over to false. > > > > > > It seems like the main rationale for tying this behavior to the Kafka > > > client version is to force people to stop using the empty group id so > > that > > > they can upgrade their clients. But it's also possible that people will > > > stop upgrading their Kafka clients instead. That would be pretty > > negative > > > since they'd miss out on any efficiency and feature improvements in the > > > new clients and eventually have to do more protocol downgrading, etc. > > > > > > best, > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, at 11:50, Vahid S Hashemian wrote: > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > That makes sense. > > > > I have updated the KIP based on the recent feedback. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > Date: 07/25/2018 02:23 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vahid, > > > > > > > > I was thinking we'd only use the old API version if we had to. That > > is, > > > > only if the user has explicitly configured "" as the group.id. > > > Otherwise, > > > > we'd just use the new one. Another option is to just drop support in > > the > > > > client for the empty group id, but usually we allow a deprecation > > period > > > > for changes like this. > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for additional clarification. > > > > > > > > > > So the next version of the OffsetCommit API will return an > > > > > INVALID_GROUP_ID error for empty group ids; but on the client side > > we > > > > call > > > > > the older version of the client until the next major release. > > > > > The table below should summarize this. > > > > > > > > > > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > | Client (group.id="") | > > > > > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > | pre-2.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 | > > > > > > > > > +-----+-----------+---------+------------------------+------ > > > ------------+ > > > > > | | V5 (cur.) | works | works | works | > > > > > + API > > > > +-----------+---------+------------------------+------------------+ > > > > > | | V6 | N/A | N/A (calls V5/warning) | > > > INVALID_GROUP_ID > > > > | > > > > > > > > > +-----+-----------+---------+------------------------+------ > > > ------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Assumptions: > > > > > * 2.1: The target release version for this KIP > > > > > * 3.0: The next major release > > > > > > > > > > Please advise if you see an issue; otherwise, I'll update the KIP > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > > Date: 07/25/2018 12:08 AM > > > > > Subject: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the > > > > default > > > > > group id behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I think we all agree that going forward, we > > > > > shouldn't support the empty group id, so the question is just around > > > > > compatibility. I think we have to bump the OffsetCommit API version > > so > > > > > that > > > > > old clients which are unknowingly depending on the default empty > > group > > > > id > > > > > will continue to work with new brokers. For new versions of the > > > client, > > > > we > > > > > can either drop support for the empty group id immediately or we can > > > > give > > > > > users a grace period. I was thinking we would do the latter. We can > > > > change > > > > > the default group.id, but in the case that a user has explicitly > > > > > configured > > > > > the empty group, then we can just use an old version of the > > > OffsetCommit > > > > > API which still supports it. In a future release, we can drop this > > > > support > > > > > and only use the latest OffsetCommit version. Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > > > > > > > > > > > So if we are going to continue supporting the empty group id as > > > before > > > > > > (with only an addition of a deprecation warning), and disable > > > > > > enable.auto.commit for the new default (null) group id on the > > client > > > > > side, > > > > > > do we really need to bump up the OffsetCommit version? > > > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned "If an explicit empty string is configured for the > > > group > > > > > id, > > > > > > then maybe we keep the current behavior for compatibility" which > > > makes > > > > > > sense to me, but I find it in conflict with your earlier > > suggestion > > > > "we > > > > > > just need to bump the OffsetCommit request API and only accept the > > > > > offset > > > > > > commit for older versions.". Maybe I'm missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > > > Date: 07/23/2018 10:52 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group > > id > > > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updates. Just to clarify, I was suggesting that we > > > > > disable > > > > > > enable.auto.commit only if no explicit group.id is configured. If > > an > > > > > > explicit empty string is configured for the group id, then maybe > > we > > > > keep > > > > > > the current behavior for compatibility. We can log a warning > > > > mentioning > > > > > > the > > > > > > deprecation and we can use the old version of the OffsetCommit API > > > > that > > > > > > allows the empty group id. In a later release, we can drop this > > > > support > > > > > in > > > > > > the client. Does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, instead of using the new ILLEGAL_OFFSET_COMMIT error > > > code, > > > > > > couldn't we use INVALID_GROUP_ID? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Stanislav Kozlovski > > > > > > <stanis...@confluent.io > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No I don't see an issue with it. I believe it to be the best > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Stanisav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:41 PM Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > Do you see an issue with using `null` as the default group id > > (as > > > > > > > > addressed by Jason in his response)? > > > > > > > > This default group id would not support offset commits and > > > > consumers > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > use `auto.offset.reset` config when there is no current > > offset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > > > > > > Date: 07/20/2018 11:09 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default > > group > > > > id > > > > > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Jason's notion that > > > > > > > > > implicit use of the empty group.id to commit offsets is > > more > > > > > likely > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be causing users unexpected problems than actually providing a > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > capability. > > > > > > > > I was initially confused that this is the behavior when > > > > > investigating > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > new-ish JIRA issue < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6758 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > the same topic. > > > > > > > > So, +1 to deprecating "" as a group.id > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question after that becomes what the *default* value > > should > > > be > > > > - > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > we: > > > > > > > > a) treat an unconfigured group.id consumer as a sort of > > > > intermittent > > > > > > > > consumer where you don't store offsets at all (thereby making > > the > > > > > user > > > > > > > > explicitly sign up for them) > > > > > > > > b) have a default value which makes use of them? I sort of > > like > > > > the > > > > > > > > former. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Dhruvil, thinking about it at a high-level - yes. I can't > > think > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > > > > situation where it makes sense to name something an empty > > string > > > > as > > > > > > far > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > I'm aware - to me it seems like potential for confusion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM Rajini Sivaram > > > > > > <rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to deprecate use of "" as group.id since it is odd to > > have > > > a > > > > > > > resource > > > > > > > > > name that you cannot set ACLs for. Agree, we have to support > > > > older > > > > > > > > clients > > > > > > > > > though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Jason Gustafson > > > > > > <ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for getting to this so late. I think there are two > > > > things > > > > > > here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The use of "" as a groupId has always been a dubious > > > > practice > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > best. > > > > > > > > > > We definitely ought to deprecate its use in the client. > > > > Perhaps > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > major release, we can remove support completely. However, > > > > since > > > > > > older > > > > > > > > > > clients depend on it, we may have to continue letting the > > > > broker > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > to some extent. Perhaps we just need to bump the > > OffsetCommit > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > and only accept the offset commit for older versions. You > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > do this anyway if you want to introduce the new error code > > > > since > > > > > > old > > > > > > > > > > clients will not expect it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. There should be a way for the consumer to indicate that > > it > > > > > has > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > > id and will not commit offsets. This is an explicit > > > > instruction > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > consumer should not bother with coordinator lookup and > > such. > > > > We > > > > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > > > have some brittle logic in place to let users avoid the > > > > > > coordinator > > > > > > > > > lookup, > > > > > > > > > > but it is a bit error-prone. I was hoping that we could > > > change > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > value of group.id to be null so that the user had to take > > an > > > > > > > explicit > > > > > > > > > > action to opt into coordinator management (groups or > > > offsets). > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > is true that some users may be unknowingly depending on > > > offset > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > they are using both the default group.id and the default > > > > > > > > > > enable.auto.commit. Perhaps one option is to disable > > > > > > > > enable.auto.commit > > > > > > > > > > automatically if no group.id is specified? I am not sure > > if > > > > > there > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > drawbacks, but my feeling is that implicit use of the > > empty > > > > > > group.id > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > commit offsets is more likely to be causing users > > unexpected > > > > > > problems > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > actually providing a useful capability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Viktor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > So you're in favor of disallowing the empty ("") group > > id > > > > > > > altogether > > > > > > > > > > (even > > > > > > > > > > > for fetching). > > > > > > > > > > > Given that ideally no one should be using the empty > > group > > > id > > > > > (at > > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > a production setting) I think the impact would be > > minimal > > > in > > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But as you said, let's hear what others think and I'd be > > > > happy > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > modify > > > > > > > > > > > the KIP if needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 05/28/2018 05:18 AM > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the > > default > > > > > group > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (with the argument that using the default group id for > > > > offset > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > > > should not be the user's intention in practice). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, so in my opinion too this use case doesn't seem too > > > > > > practical. > > > > > > > > > Also > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > think breaking the offset commit is not smaller from > > this > > > > > > > > perspective > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > breaking fetch and offset fetch. If we suppose that > > someone > > > > > uses > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > default group id and we break the offset commit then > > that > > > > > might > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > harder > > > > > > > > > > > to detect than breaking the whole thing altogether. (If > > we > > > > > think > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade situation.) > > > > > > > > > > > So since we think it is not a practical use case, I > > think > > > it > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > better to break altogether but ofc that's just my 2 > > cents > > > > :). > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > > > gather > > > > > > > > > > > other's input as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > > > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, to minimize the backward compatibility impact, > > there > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > harm > > > > > > > > > > > > in letting a stand-alone consumer consume messages > > under > > > a > > > > > "" > > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > > > > (as > > > > > > > > > > > > long as there is no offset commit). > > > > > > > > > > > > It would have to knowingly seek to an offset or rely > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > auto.offset.reset config for the starting offset. > > > > > > > > > > > > This way the existing functionality would be preserved > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > (with the argument that using the default group id for > > > > > offset > > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > > > > should not be the user's intention in practice). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 05/25/2018 04:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the > > > default > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vahid, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When reading your KIP I coldn't fully understand why > > did > > > > you > > > > > > > > decide > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > failing with "offset_commit" in case #2? Can't we fail > > > > with > > > > > an > > > > > > > > empty > > > > > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > > > > id even in "fetch" or "fetch_offset"? What was the > > reason > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > deciding > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > fail at "offset_commit"? Was it because of upgrade > > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > > > > > reasons? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Ted Yu > > > > > <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Vahid S > > > > Hashemian > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> Date: 5/23/18 11:19 AM > > > > > > > (GMT-08:00) > > > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: > > > > > Improve > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > > group id behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ted, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing the KIP. I updated the KIP and > > > > > > introduced > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > error > > > > > > > > > > > > > code for the scenario described. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 04/27/2018 04:31 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the > > > > default > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bq. If they attempt an offset commit they will > > receive > > > > an > > > > > > > error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you outline what specific error would be > > > encountered > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > > > > > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have drafted a proposal for improving the > > behavior > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using the default group id: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 289%3A+Improve+the+default+group+id+behavior+in+ > > > > > > > KafkaConsumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposal based on the issue and suggestion > > > > reported > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > KAFKA-6774. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your feedback is welcome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
